What’s interesting to me though is the reaction we see from our readers. Some are vehemently opposed to what they consider Google strong arm tactics and then there are those of you who think Google is performing a service to the internet community by cracking down on paid links.

What Do You Think About Paid Links?

As such, I wanted to post some of the more interesting comments we’ve received to the issue so far and basically ask for some more feedback from WebProNews readers on the subject.

Are paid links a necessary evil? Are they necessary at all? Is Google taking a proper stance when they say ‘NO’, or should they maybe try to find some middle ground? Keep in mind, Google has created the ‘link economy’ with it’s algorithmic emphasis on links=quality… so is Google really serving the ‘greater good’ or just looking out for number one here?

» Natural Products Says:

Great interview. Seems like big brother is putting the hammer down on paid links. Thanks for the video.

» Submitted by Bill Inman

Google decided to become a dictator a long time ago. Trying to control every aspect of our web sites, where we now spend more time worrying about what Google is going to do with our web site, than we do trying to design a site that will best serve the needs of our potential customers.

Google created the whole issue of "links" which has resulted in all the silly link pages everyone created, and now thew paid links.

My advice to Google is to get out of the role, and the opinion, that the world should revolve around them, and controling everything about our web sites.

Google is a good idea gone mad!

» Submitted by Dave Robinson

I think Google’s stance on the whole link debate is fair and honest. The reason for linking being seen as a measure of a sites importance has it’s roots in academia where peer reviewed papers would reference other works of note. Google wasn’t playing some game, it created a system that rewarded hard work. Now this has been circumvented it’s only right that Google tries to address this.

IMHO

» Submitted by SEO book Uk

There us a way to get even with google just pull adsense from your sites if 1 Million website pulled adsense for just a day google would notice a drop in revenue and will think twice before make webmaster angry again

» Submitted by David Jenkins

I’m all for the demise of paid links having spent over seven years building an information site that has never paid for a link and never will.

I am delighted that Google is taking this stance and would be glad to see "content is God" dominating the search results again.

» Submitted by Jim

In reference to Google’s insistence that they are a private company and can do what ever they want. Les we forget, the power of Google is granted by the web users and masters. Currently web masters are the biggest users of the Google browser. It is web masters pages posting Google adds, and Google searches that built Google’s popularity. The foundation of Google rest with the web master, combined we propelled Google to the top, and combined we can kick the feet out from under it. Change you adds to Yahoo, Change your search engines. In short, stop using Google, and Google shall fall.

» Submitted by Nicole on Tue, 12/11/2007 – 14:53.

As a small business web-site owner, AND as an in-house SEO writer for a large company, I frankly am happy that Google is downgrading paid-link sites that pass on link juice. When wearing my small biz hat, I can’t afford to buy paid links and it gives bigger companies an advantage I can’t yet afford. I think Google is indeed living up to their ‘do no evil’ company motto by doing this.

» Submitted by Kevin Hillman

People that support Google in any way just further the scam. Every link on any Google site is there because Google was paid to place the link there. They just like to make every site conform to their heavy handed rules. They want to own the entire internet and will crush any website they don’t agree with.

Do you agree or disagree with the above comments? Are paid links just part of business, or are they something evil when they influence search results?

Add your thoughts here…

Watch the video, and read the article where our readers above commented.

Funny, you look forward to them when you’re not in the top 20 and you fear them when you enter the top 5.

I realized that my client was not the exception to the rule. I get IMs, calls and emails every day from clients who monitor their sites for the slightest fluctuations. And then I recalled that when I launch my browser in the morning it launches with 4 tabs, 2 with different Google datacenters, one with Yahoo! and one with MSN – all launched with our primary phrase in the search box. OK, maybe, just maybe, I/we have a problem.

I decides to let me fingers do the walking and clicked my way over to helpguide.org’s list of signs and symptoms of addiction. Here’s what they had to say about it (their references are to drugs but we can all make the comparison):

• Inability to relax or have fun without being high … um … in the rankings.
  Do you relax when there’s an update going on and you’re not sure how your site is faring.
• Angry outbursts, mood swings, irritability, manic behavior, or overall attitude change.
  How did you behave the last time your site dropped in the rankings, even temporarily?
• Talking incoherently or making inappropriate remarks.
  Normally towards a monitor.
• Deterioration of physical appearance and grooming.
  No comments needed on this one.
• Wearing sunglasses and/or long sleeve shirts frequently or at inappropriate times.
  Too pale from dark offices to not wear sunglasses and long sleeves outside – even in the harsh moonlight.
• No longer spending time with friends who don’t optimize sites and/or associating with known users.
  Social life? That’s what we do on Facebook when we’re having downtime right?
• Engaging in secretive or suspicious behaviors, such as making frequent trips to the back room, basement, or Starbucks where Internet connectivity use would be undisturbed.
  Excuse me, I just have to check on something quickly (… 2 hours later …)
• Talking about optimization all the time and pressuring others to do it too.
  It’s a great way to make money from home! And you can signup for the affiliate programs in my downline !!!
• Expressing feelings of exhaustion, depression, and hopelessness.
  This doesn’t apply if your site is in the top 10.
• Checking your rankings first thing in the morning.
  If you need to check your rankings more than you need a coffee in the morning – you have a problem.

So it was this that made me really realize it … I have a problem and chances are, if you’re on this blog, you do too. Because most of us don’t have a life outside our computers and SEO conventions (go ahead, admit it) I’ve created a Facebook group for us. Of course we’ll all probably chat about SEO and … ummm …. OK maybe I’m making the problem worse but if you’re not afraid then you can visit http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5531324665 to join us on the dark side.

Tag:

The Pew Internet and American Life Project said that about 59 percent of Americans with children between the ages of 12-17 believe the Internet is a positive influence on their offspring. That is an 8 percent drop from 67 percent in 2004.

In 2006, 30 percent of parents of online teens said they did not think the Internet had any effect on their children compared to 25 percent in 2004. Parents with high levels of education are more likely to think that email and the Internet have been beneficial for their children than parents with less education.

The majority of parents stay involved with their teen’s online lives. Sixty-five percent of parent’s say that after their child has been online, they investigate to see what Web sites they visited. Seventy-four percent of parents can identify if their teens have created a profile on social networking sites that others can see such as MySpace and Facebook.

Parents are more concerned about the content their children view online than the amount of time they spend on the Internet. Sixty-eight percent of parents say they have rules about the kinds of sites their kids can visit along with rules about the information they share with people they talk to on the Internet.

Pay Per Click Party Over?

Even more impressive is that pay per click has empowered literally hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs in their web businesses. Quite a few sites, which prior to pay per click would have trouble making money, are earning more than $10,000 per month. Large sites such as NY Times, CNN, BusinessWeek and ESPN are also using pay per click to supplement their ad revenue.

Pay per click seems to be booming … but is the party soon to be over?

Blogger Steve Rubel came up with five reasons (in bold) on why pay per click is in trouble.  I’ll  take a look at each one of his points below.

1) Clutter
Google didn’t invent text ads, it just popularized them. Their Adsense program has made it simple for sites to add which has caused a glut of text ads everywhere you click. I see the "clutter" problem as an Adsense clutter problem that leads to a phenomenon all web publishers have dealt with … ad blindness.

As for clutter in search results, I see this as a problem of an educated user base. When text ads first appeared in search results the average user didn’t identify them as ads, thus they had a great click rate. Now only the most casual users still doesn’t realize what is and isn’t an ad in search results, resulting in much lower click rates. This problem will only get worse over time.

Google and the other engines need to find a way to make the ads blend better with search results and content. How far they can go with this strategy without alienating the searcher or site visitor is the question.


2) Declining Relevance of Traffic/Transition to Cost Per Action
People are still clicking in big numbers but evidence suggests they are not converting as much. My guess is that conversions of ads in search results are not as much of an issue as conversions from Adsense partner clicks. This has become a bigger problem as  the Adsense program has grown.

3) Rising Costs
Click costs have gone up substantially since the good old days of GoTo.com where you could buy clicks for as little as one cent. Marketers must justify their expenditures on advertising based on its impact on sales. Will the increasing cost of text ads for most key words cause cuts in search marketing budgets?

I actually don’t see prices falling any time soon. The world is competing for keywords and bidding them up as necessary. Some may look for other Internet marketing options but the world is a big marketplace and so far there is no shortage of bidders.

The rising cost has its biggest impact on small business where price matters more. When small businesses are cut out of buying popular key words they may eventually just give up on search marketing – not good in the long run for the search engines.


4) Marketers Spread the Ball Around
The Internet has changed since search engines began selling text ads. You now have social media like MySpace, Facebook and Twitter. We have seen the rise of widgets where call to action ads will likely be integrated. Video is now mainstream with sites (like WebProNews) making video part of everyday content. The Internet is becoming accessible via many devices making it an accessory of life!

Marketers now have the ability to market products and services that are integrated into the user experience. Content can be ads and ads can be content. Marketers are becoming smarter in how they use the Internet. It is just a matter of time before a critical mass of advertisers see pay per click text ads as a tool past its prime.

5) Search Ads Are Viewed as Untrustworthy
As with anything that gets a lot of bad press (think click fraud) people start to wonder about its trustworthiness. I don’t think this is critical yet, but Google and the others must  find a better way to detect, deter and prevent click fraud.

Additionally, the engines must be more selective about their pay per click partner sites. There are many sites that exist solely to get "pay per click" clicks. This is bad for Google, Yahoo and Microsoft because it leads to a general uneasiness among ad buyers.

We would love to hear what you think. Is the pay per click party over or is it just getting started? Comment here…

Google Bakes A Gigantic Cake

“To commemorate the first anniversary of our New York office in its current space, we decided to think big — a giant scale-model cake of the entire block-long building,” announced Kevin McConvey, a cafe director, on the Official Google Blog.  “Our facilities manager, Laura Gimpel, and I came up with a plan to construct this tasty treat and serve it at last Thursday’s anniversary celebration.”

That plan, which McConvey went on to lay out, involved four days, seven people, 630 eggs, 105 pounds of sugar, and 20 pounds of butter.  “The finished product was five feet long, three feet high and two feet wide,” he reported.  “Now that’s a lot of cake!”

And, as you can (usually) trust Google to do, the company let nothing go to waste; the last of the ginormous treat disappeared on Friday evening.

Now, I’m not sure that the cake did anyone’s waistline or blood pressure much good, and health enthusiasts may wholeheartedly object to the project.  But the pleasure of working for Google probably makes up for some of that stuff.  And in any event, I’m with McConvey, who concluded, “I can’t wait to see what we do when our office turns two.”

AP Suing Moreover Like It’s 1999

>>> What do you think? Provide your perspective on this lawsuit here.

I founded the first news aggregation site on the Internet back in 1996 called NewsLinx which had the slogan, "All the News On the Web About the Web." NewsLinx is now owned by Alan Meckler’s Jupitermedia Corporation.

I remember getting personal calls and emails from virtually every site I linked to including the Wall Street Journal, Time Warner, L.A. Times and many others. The calls and emails usually started with the question, "Do you have permission to link to our articles?" Old media legal departments were clearly very green with the Internet. My typical response was, "No, we don’t have permission and if you would like us to stop linking and driving traffic to your site just let me know. However, we feel we have every right to link to your articles without permission because the Internet itself is based on the concept of linking."

Much of this law is still not completely settled, but publishers generally rely on the fair use principle that small snippets linking to a story are permissible. Cases like AP vs. Moreover can open a can of worms for the largest news aggregation sites on the Internet such as Google News and The Drudge Report. This likely is the reason that Google signed an agreement with the AP a couple of weeks ago to link to AP stories within Google itself rather than other AP partner sites like CNN. 

What would be of concern to Google, Drudge and many others is a rogue ruling by a not-so-Internet-savvy Federal Judge that would put real restrictions on linking to news. So far, the prevailing standard has been the legal concept of fair use. Hopefully, this case is assigned to a judge who realizes that the Internet is based on links. The use of an article title and short summary has been considered fair use in past cases. However, I am not sure if the use of smaller versions of copyrighted pictures regularly used by Google News and Drudge will withstand this fair use test.

The legal filing itself shows a complete lack of understanding of the Internet in general and online news aggregation in particular:

6. Defendants are also trespassing on AP’s chattel by using search robots or "crawlers" to retrieve information form AP’s computer servers in order to display, archive, cache, store, and/or distribute AP’s proprietary works.

To me item number 6 simply defines a search engine. All search engines violate this standard of copyright and this has been deemed fair use. What the Moreover service does is aggregate certain news including news from AP and provide links for people to get to said news. They don’t link to news that isn’t made publicly available and they don’t provide full copies of articles to clients.

The AP’s lawyers go to great lengths to build up the copyright value of their first sentence in their articles, called "leads." They state, "Leads are so important that journalism schools offer courses dedicated entirely to techniques for creating them." The first sentences are often the only snippet taken as part of news aggregation link sites like Moreover and Google.

It makes you think that if fair use is narrowed to this extent, no article could quote another article. Or perhaps the AP lawyers would agree that you could quote another article as long as you don’t link to that article; thus, a kind of backwards SEO.

The heart of the complaint by AP is their contention that you can’t operate a news aggregation site like Moreover (or Google News,  Topix, Drudge, WebProWire, Digg and Techmeme) as a commercial venture. Unless you have an agreement with AP to carry their stories, apparently, you can’t link to them.

Specifically, AP does not like the marketing approach taken by Moreover because it competes directly with their syndication business model.

36. Defendants vigorously stress the "hot news" aspect of their services. And, as Moreover pronounces in its website-based marketing materials: "For current awareness, news aggregation is far superior to traditional syndication. Why? Increasingly, critical business information appears first, and more often exclusively, on the open Internet. Because Moreover aggregates news already available on the Web, there are no hidden content access charges like those associated with syndicated news services. The result is a fixed, predictable cost structure that delivers a rapid return on investment.

AP’s legal complaint finesses the fact that Moreover does not actually use more than the headline and lead of their articles. They also fail to mention that Moreover provides direct links to AP and to AP partner websites for every article. The complaint states:

41. Thus, Exhibits F – J show that Defendants are simply copying AP’s proprietary material, including the headline and all or a portion of the lead, and delivering it on a real-time basis to their paying subscribers and other users.

The links themselves make it clear to Moreover subscribers that these are not their articles. The links also are a traditional way on the Internet to acknowledge copyright to the publisher of the article. These points are all conveniently left out of the Moreover copyright complaint.

This lawsuit makes the "brilliant" case that:

- You can’t use headlines of articles without permission from copyright holders.

- You can’t use leads or short snippets of articles without permission from copyright holders.

- You can’t run a business that sorts data available to anyone on the Internet like news aggregation sites do.

- You can’t use marketing statements like "hot news" if you link to groups of AP articles.

Basically, you can’t run a news aggregation business that includes links to AP stories because that competes with AP’s paid syndication model, according to AP.

Unfortunately, an AP win here could ultimately subject the entire concept of linking on the Internet to a new legal standard, especially links to news stories and blog posts. If fair use becomes "permission linking" then much of the Internet could be challenged.

The AP seems to think it has a monopoly on high quality content. A legal standard based on this case would mean all linking is subject to approval by the party being linked to.

 >>> Comment on this article here.

 Download the complaint in PDF formate here:
http://www.scribd.com/word/download/386951?extension=pdf

Microsoft CEO Says Google Reads Your Mail

Ballmer, who was recently in the news over his “Facebook is a fad” comments, took his latest shot during a Microsoft Startup Accelerator Programme speech:

That quote comes courtesy of Ed Moltzen, who made a video of the event available.  You’d expect that Google might have come back with a quick response – the proverbial peanut gallery attacks the company all the time, but Ballmer, Microsoft’s CEO, has a rather high profile.  Mountain View has not yet said anything, however.

Is Google just holding its head high?  Or is there something to Ballmer’s claim?  We’ll keep our eyes and ears open as privacy advocates take an intense interest in the matter.

The site is in beta and MTV says the site is for everyone from volunteers to die hard activists to anyone in between. The site will let users create profile pages like on other social networks such as MySpace and Facebook and they will be able to upload videos and photos.

MTV launched Think in part because of a study they did that found young people care about activism and 80 percent said it was a positive step to become involved in their community but only 19 percent described themselves as being "very involved."

The Think site has backing from founding partners the Case Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Goldhirsch Foundation and MCJ Amelior Foundation. They will act as advisors and help bring other non-profit organizations into the Think Community.

"The Think Community was built to catalyze a sea change in youth activism and make rock stars out of those young people working to better themselves, their communities and the world," said Christina Norman, President, MTV.

"We’re honored to partner with forward-thinking foundations, non-profits, celebrities and America’s youth on this powerful new platform for positive social change."

The site itself has a good look but the features are nothing groundbreaking. They do focus on a variety of issues that may be attractive to the MTV demographic, and could spur involvement in issues such as the environment, politics and education. The social networking scene is a crowded one for sure, but MTV’s Think maybe on to something with its social issue focus.

How CBS Blew Up My Puff Piece

This story began in pursuit of an ironic 300-word puff piece about somewhat of a catfight between MoveOn.org and CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric. WebProNews is not in the habit of dabbling in political squabbles, lest they directly involve Internet and Web issues that affect online business. We also cover Web 2.0 and blogs – the new citizen media.

In short, we didn’t have a dog in this fight, and your humble author who, just like Ferris Bueller doesn’t believe in isms, would tell you he is neither Right nor Left, but maybe, if he had to label himself, is a John Stuart Mill Utilitarianist with Thomas Paine Libertarian tendencies and a slightly Aristotelian disdain for the unwashed masses* (so maybe you shouldn’t ask).

Regardless, WebProNews becomes involved because someone at CBS allegedly (a CBS spokeswoman was quite adamant about the "allegedly" part) insulted viewers who complained about Couric’s "softball" reporting from Iraq and mocked them for getting their information from blogs.

Oh, and Katie Couric’s publicist threatened to sue us, which also gets us involved in a much bigger way, and makes this story, much, much more newsworthy, but we’ll get to that later.  

The story begins this way:

MoveOn.org posted a scathing video on YouTube accusing Couric of not doing her job as a journalist and just parroting government talking points, and encouraged MoveOn members to email CBS to complain.

One such member, Errol Siegel of Austin Texas, heeded the call and emailed CBS Evening News on Monday, September 10, at 11:42 a.m, CST. He wrote:

I started watching Couric’s series of reports hoping to learn something valuable..  All I learned was that CBS is content to produce puff pieces scripted by the institutions it purports to be investigating.

I did not hear Couric push for real answers on one single issue!  She simply took everything she was told and parrotted it back to the masses.

I’m embarassed and saddened.  You should be too.

A reply to the email appearing to be from CBS Evening News, with the address Evening@cbsnews.com, arrived just 23 minutes later reading:

Actually most intelligent people were very impressed by the quality of our reports from Iraq and Syria …Apparently you missed most of the interviews that were done over there…imagine you got your information from a blog somewhere…

Siegel tells WebProNews, "I have spent years writing letters, sending e-mails, and making phone calls. This is the first time I have been personally insulted by a major news organization."

At CrooksAndLiars.com, a commentator named Dominic Lucarelli recounts a similar response to his complaint:

Sorry you didn’t get a chance to see much of the reporting from Iraq….if you had, you wouldn’t have written such a note…imagine all your info came from a blog…too bad.

"Not TOO condescending, eh?" remarks Lucarelli.

This is all very interesting to me, only because of the irony. It wasn’t too long ago that Dan Rather was shamed off the airwaves by the very medium CBS News is allegedly disparaging. This is the same medium that even the New York Times has credited as a viable news source, as bloggers are often first on the scene at major news events; Hurricane Katrina comes to mind.

It was also interesting to me that the once "liberal media" was now being accused of being a government mouthpiece, but I was more interested in confirming whether or not a representative of CBS made those remarks, and if I could talk to Katie to get her reaction to the accusations, to talk about the new media and how the established media is handling it.

When asked about the comments in the email, CBS Evening News Communications Manager Jennifer Farley (Couric’s publicist) said, "It’s very easy to make it look like it came from us," and would not confirm that the email came from CBS News, despite the email address. 

I understood the comment, "It’s very easy to make it look like it came from us," as well as other comments she made as a denial that CBS sent the email, and so, out of professional courtesy, not out of any type of journalistic requirement, I contacted Ms. Farley the next day (before I wrote the 300-word ironic puff-piece) to confirm CBS’s position.

I did it politely, because I’m from the South, thanked her for her time and wished her a nice day. My understanding: CBS denies sending the email, cannot confirm that it came from there.

A few minutes later, Ms. Farley, by telephone, insists that everything that was said yesterday was off the record, that CBS didn’t even have a "no comment" because there was nothing to comment on, and if I printed that I could expect to hear from CBS’s legal department. Very suddenly, then, she has turned my puff piece into a major story about a major network trying to bully a Web-publication with the threat of a SLAPP suit. And I am stunned by how she has transformed something routine into something newsworthy. 

I’m also aware (because she told me) that Ms. Farley graduated top of her class from Columbia Journalism School, and was quite willing to let me know how much I had to learn about journalism, but she should be at least vaguely familiar with the First Amendment, and that a source can’t just give information and say it’s "off the record" with any type of viable legal grounds. It’s a professional courtesy, not a legal mandate, and that courtesy sort of flies out the window when lawsuits are threatened.

But enough about me and Ms. Farley. Let’s get back to the email.

MoveOn traced the IP address of the email addressed from Evening@cbsnews.com, the one that would be very easy to make look like came from CBS to 170.20.0.80, which resolves to a mail server at CBS Inc., 524 West 57th Street, New York, NY 10019.

Adam Green, Civics Communications Director for MoveOn.org, says, "It’s a real problem when big media corporations like CBS refuse to ask tough questions challenging President Bush’s lies about Iraq, yet feel fine threatening little-guy online news sites for daring to hold CBS accountable."

Yeah, well, we’re not that little. We can hold our own. And though the New York Times mistakenly called me a blogger, I didn’t take any offense, just appreciated the name drop, and that at least some part of the established media recognizes the power of citizen journalism, and that the new media has the right – and ability – to stand up to the old media.

_{*Warning: Philosophical joke. It’s hard to be at once humble and Aristotelian; this is in no way a swipe at the poor or the homeless, but meant only as a way of expressing a distrust of mob rule, and therefore a preference for representative democracy rather than direct democracy.}

I use WLW and think it’s a terrific application.

With beta 3, the method of installing the software has changed somewhat from previous betas. The installer is the new Windows Live installer, and how it behaves has upset a number of people.

What happens is this. You download the installer and run it. As you’d expect, WLW is the program selected for installation. What you wouldn’t expect is to see a bunch of other programs also selected for installation.

In other words, you haven’t chosen to install those other programs but you’ll get them unless you explicitly un-check the little box for each program.

And those other programs are quite a lot – Messenger, Mail, Toolbar, Photo Gallery, Family Safety and, depending on your version of Windows, Desktop Search.

Here’s a screenshot of the installer that I ran, after I’d un-checked all those little boxes:

It’s pretty disingenuous to see a line of text that says “Select any additional products you want to install” when all of those products have already been pre-selected by the software developer. That really does upset some people.

I just find it irritating (or is that the same thing?).

Now I don’t happen to think that this is that big of a deal. It’s easy enough to uncheck those boxes – which means you need to pay close attention to the screens as they appear – and you move on.

But wouldn’t it be better if software publishers like Microsoft did it right from the start? If they didn’t offer you an installer for one product and then snuck in a bunch of other stuff that you didn’t opt in to get?

Isn’t this in the same yuk pile as spam email? You know, the stuff you get that offers you a link so you can opt out although you never opted in in the first place?

Microsoft, think of your total offering from the user’s point of view. You have a great product with WLW yet getting it onto your computer is not a good experience.

I don’t know about you, but whenever I install a program that also pre-selects other things, my automatic reaction is to de-select all that other stuff straightaway. That’s how I deal with the irritation.

Microsoft’s not the only guilty party. Others do it, too. Think about Real and Yahoo, for instance. Some are even worse – other apps actually get installed whether you want them or not.

Tom Raftery is one who has a strong view about this issue. While I don’t agree with Tom that this is an ethics issue, I do agree that it’s pretty poor behaviour that Microsoft ought to change.

And if it is common practice in the software business, as Microsoft’s Kris Hoet says, then here’s your chance, Microsoft, to take a lead and force a change, for your own products at least.

Your marketing people may not like it – and let’s face it, the auto-opt-you-in approach must be marketing driven – but it’s a good PR opportunity for you, apart from anything else.

Comments

Tag: